: Wed Jul 23, 2008 9:19 am
Bullseye wrote:
I'm not surprised but it looks like there has been hardly any progress made at all in the past 18 months. Looks we'll have to wait even longer now to hear if the scheme is viable.
There seems to be no will to drive it forward and make some real progress, what makes you think it will materialise?
I agree that some pool provision is a must if the R Dunn centre and Buttershaw pools are to close soon. I always said that any sale of Horsfall should be mitigated by including open green space in the OSV scheme but this didn't occur and as such the Horsfall group had good cause to complain. If the new scheme doesn't provide a pool then the same problems could occur IMO.
It all seems to me to be a scheme too ambitious for our council to push though.
I'm surprised also that so little progress has been made. I'm convinced
*something will happen because it has to. I can't see them refurbing Richard Dunn's and anyway they'd need the land to finance a new project from scratch. They have a legal obligation to provide sports facilities for the public.
Currently the swimming provision or lack of ( they have some consultants recommendation for a city central 50m swimming pool to replace the need for decaying local pools ) works in the schemes favour as it would reduce the cost of said Sports Centre and Bulls facilities.
Personally I think the pool situation is more a smokescreen to reduce the cost of OSV by the backdoor. The thing has legs yet as imagine the uproar IF the Buttershaw pool has to close AND the new Sports Centre has no pool due to cost and yet the Bulls get a shiny new roof etc
*something -
could be a crappy sports centre with no pool and no facilities for the Bulls or a trade-off no facilities for the Bulls and a pool.
I presume the legalities of the lease and what the Council could be allowed to do if the Bulls were against any plans would dictate some of the possible permutations